The influence of business ethicsand community outreach on facultyengagement: the mediating effectof legitimacy in higher education

Alicia Blanco-Gonz�alez and Cristina Del-Castillo-FeitoRey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain, and

Giorgia MiottoBlanquerna Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to measure the effects of universities’ ethical management and positiveimpact on society affect the faculty engagement through the mediating effect of organizational legitimacy.Design/methodology/approach – Engaged employees are characterized by better performance, increasedproductivity and bygenerating higher customer loyalty aswell greater economic profit. The commitment to theorganization they work for is affected by internal and external inputs. Among these, business ethics andcorporate community outreach are key factors for improving employee engagement. The authors developed asurvey that was distributed to professors of Spanish universities. To treat the data and test the proposedhypotheses, the authors applied structural equations through PLS-SEM.Findings – This research contributes to the organizational management field literature and advisesuniversity administrators to adopt an ethical management style based on information transparency,accountability and faculty member involvement in the decision-making process in order to improve theirengagement and, therefore, increasing student satisfaction, academic results and positive impact on thecommon good.Originality/value – The novelty of the authors’ research stands in the inclusion of legitimacy as a mediationeffect between business ethics and community outreach that affect employees’ engagement and, specifically,faculty engagement.

Keywords Ethics, Legitimacy, Engagement, Community outreach, Higher education

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe ethical management of an institution is key to generate positive relationships withinternal and external stakeholders as well as to guarantee their cooperation and commitment(Egan, 2019; Hudson et al., 2017). Business ethics defines the pillars for sustainable andresponsible corporate governance, designing the moral structure of the entire organization(Rezaee, 2008). Organizations, that are managed taking into consideration the ethical impactand consequences of their activities, are able to engage with their stakeholders and, therefore,to gain a sustained competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2006).

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

281

JEL Classification — M14, M31© Alicia Blanco-Gonz�alez, Cristina Del-Castillo-Feito and Giorgia Miotto. Published in European

Journal ofManagement and Business Economics. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This articleis published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercialpurposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licencemay be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Declaration of interest: none.Funding: This research was supported by Camilo Prado Foundation (Madrid, Spain).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2444-8494.htm

Received 3 July 2020Revised 4 November 2020

15 January 2021Accepted 1 February 2021

European Journal of Managementand Business Economics

Vol. 30 No. 3, 2021pp. 281-298

Emerald Publishing Limitede-ISSN: 2444-8494p-ISSN: 2444-8451

DOI 10.1108/EJMBE-07-2020-0182

One of the most important stakeholders are the employees, and responsible managersfocus their efforts in taking care of them (Carroll et al., 2019). Employees tend to mirror thebehavior of their supervisors, so ethically managed companies are more likely to have moreresponsible workers (Afsar et al., 2020). An ethical management influences positively theattitudes and behaviors of employees (Hur et al., 2019; Lee and Chen, 2018; Testa et al., 2018)and ethical leadership favors and increases employee engagement (Furlotti andMazza, 2020).Engaged employees are characterized by higher performance, greater productivity and bygenerating superior customer loyalty as well as greater economic profit (Decuypere andSchaufeli, 2020; Harter, 2018).

Engaged employees consider their job as a meaningful activity. They care about theimpact of their actions on society and they feel fulfilled by improving and cooperating for thecommon good (Afsar et al., 2020). The community outreach component of their job isimportant for their satisfaction and identification with the organization they work for(Cycyota et al., 2016).

Employee engagement generates a competitive advantage in many industries (Decuypereand Schaufeli, 2020; Harter, 2018). Higher education (HE) institutions are experiencing acompetitive environment and they are adapting themselves to an increasingly global anddemanding context. They compete for financial resources, but also for students and topfaculty members. Universities administration is comparable with corporate business strategyand it is ruled by competitiveness, quality assurance, effective budget allocation, fundraisingand employee management (Miotto et al., 2018). HE institutions must identify a competitiveadvantage to stand out in a crowded marketplace (Ali-Choudhury et al., 2009; Judson et al.,2007) and, at the same time, to positively impact the common good (Akrivou and Bradbury-Huang, 2015). Students’ quality perception is influenced by professors’ attitudes andcapabilities. Committed professors deliver a better service, improving students results,satisfaction and sense of belonging to the institution (VanMaele andVanHoutte, 2011).Withinthe demanding HE environment, faculty engagement can be a valuable source of competitiveadvantage (Marken and Maton, 2019). Professors’ engagement may be generated internally,thanks to their identification with their managers’ ethical behavior and good governance, andexternally, thanks to the positive community outreach of their job (Kim et al., 2010).

Because of the intangible nature of the HE sector, quality is hard to perceive andcommunicate. Universities have understood the importance of intangible assets such as thelegitimacy to manage internal and external stakeholders (Alves and Raposo, 2010; Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). According to Suchman (1995, p. 574),corporate legitimacy is “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity aredesirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructive system of norms, values,beliefs and definitions.” By fulfilling stakeholders’ needs and expectations, organizationsacquire legitimacy that provides them with an easier and more sustained access to thenecessary resources to survive (D�ıez-Mart�ın et al., 2020; Miotto et al., 2020). Legitimacy comesfrom the societal perception of the positive impact of an institution (Alajoutsijarvi et al., 2015;Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Khurana and Nohria, 2008; Patriotta et al., 2011; Scherer et al.,2013). University legitimacy improves faculty identification and acceptance and, therefore,also students’ likability and satisfaction (Dzimi�nska et al., 2018).

The objective of this paper is to analyze which are the most important dimensions thataffect employee engagement, specifically in the HE industry. We defined four hypotheses tobetter understand faculty engagement, suggesting that business ethics and communityoutreach influence professors’ commitment and that organizational legitimacy has amediating effect. Since legitimacy has a clear benefit for institutions and it reinforces therelationship with stakeholders, we found it relevant to analyze the potential mediating rolethat this variable can have on enhancing faculty engagement. Our objective is to understandwhether the positive impact of business ethics and community outreach on faculty

EJMBE30,3

282

engagement are related or not to the legitimacy grade held by the considered institutions.There are few studies focused on behavioral context, and generally they explore the effects ofsocial responsibility (SR) on employee’s attitudes and behaviors (Hur et al., 2019) but theydo not include themediation of legitimacy. The novelty of our research stands in the inclusionof legitimacy as a mediation effect between business ethics and community outreach thataffect employees’ engagement and, specifically, faculty engagement. To achieve theseobjectives, we developed a survey that was distributed to professors of Spanish universities.To treat the data and test the proposed hypotheses, we applied structural equations throughPLS-SEM.

The paper is organized as follows: first we define a theoretical framework for facultyengagement, business ethics and community outreach in the HE environment. Second, wepropose the four hypotheses and explain the mediating role of organizational legitimacy.Third, we describe the quantitative methodology used. Finally, we discuss our findings, theirimplications and the research limitations.

2. Theoretical framework2.1 Business ethicsBusiness ethics is a concept that has a philosophical background and it is related to the ethicaldimension of organizationmanagement (Crane et al., 2008). It is a subset of applied ethics thatdeals with the morality of the business decision-making processes and effects. This conceptdescribes the decision-making process that a manager should adopt according to society’sperception of good and evil and common sense. “Business ethics may be defined as the study ofbusiness situations, activities and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed”(Crane et al., 2008, p. 56). The judgment onmorality and justice in the behaviors, practices andpolicies that are implemented in the business context are considered part of business ethics(Dierksmeier, 2013). Organizational ethics includes conscious stakeholders management,taking into consideration all the possible consequences for all the involved groups of people,trying to increase the positive impacts and decrease the negative ones, in order to improve the“common good” (Zadek, 1998).

Scholars often combine the construct of SR and business ethics. Nevertheless, the secondconcept is more related to philosophical theories based on right or wrong decisions or moralprinciples than to doing well or wrong. From a normative perspective, business ethics relatesto principles and values. From a descriptive perspective, it refers to codes of conducts andcompliance policies. Ethical decision-making is linked to individuals’ or business units’practices which affect internal and external stakeholders’ interests (Ferrell et al., 2018).Business ethics is focused on the individual role of the management activity since itunderlines the individual responsibility and not the collective and abstract corporate context(Fisher, 2004).

The business policies that guide organizational behaviors and respectful conductstowards all the stakeholders are described in SR strategies. However, the attitudes that eachprofessional, regardless of their position and role, assumes when deciding if their actions willhave a positive or negative impact for the company or for society as a whole, depend on theethics of each individual (Davidson and Griffin, 2000).

It is not the companies that act in an ethical or unethical way, but the people who work inthem. “Most Business decisions or statements about business have some ethical content or animplicit ethical view. Most ethical decisions or statements about ethics have some businesscontent or an implicit view about business” (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 7). In fact, it makes no senseto talk about business without talking about ethics. Responsible managers are required in allkinds of industries, including private, public and third sector to implement ethical,responsible and sustainable practices (Laasch et al., 2020).

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

283

Nevertheless, integrating social and sustainable strategies into corporate governance aremandatory factors in the organizational management (Porter and Kramer, 2006) to gatherlegitimacy (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007) and to develop a sustained competitive advantage(Beddewela and Fairbrass, 2016; Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016; Honig et al., 2017). Theimplementation of socially and environmentally responsible strategies is crucial forinstitutions’ legitimation, and it will increase access to key resources and, therefore, willguarantee organizations’ survival and success (Beddewela and Fairbrass, 2016; Bitektine andHaack, 2015; Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Miotto et al., 2018; Scherer et al., 2013; Zimmermanand Zeitz, 2002).

A network of relationships has to be created within the organization, since each individualneeds to count on others to receive the necessary resources to operate. These relationships arebased on socially responsible and ethical behaviors (Kleinrichert, 2008). A sociallyresponsible firm’s management requires the respect and appropriate ethical administrationof the needs of all its stakeholders (Freeman, 2010; Freeman et al., 2010; Garriga and Mel�e,2004). This relationship is based on ethical principles that refer to the respect for mutualbenefits, justice, cooperation, fairness and common good (Garriga and Mel�e, 2004), and theyare closely related to the variables presented in this study.

2.2 Employee engagementEngaged employees are more productive and loyal, they perform better, have less intentionsto leave and are an asset for their organizations (Welch, 2011). Besides performing a highereconomic output, engaged workers also have better health and psychological wellbeing(Harter, 2018). Employee engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of aperson’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote the relationships to work and to others(Kahn, 1990). Saks (2006) establishes that engagement is the level to which an individual isattentive in the performance of their job. Ewing et al. (2019) determine that engagedemployees are connected to organizational values and mission (Ewing et al., 2019).

Employees connect to their work roles emotionally, expressing the feeling they have forthe employers, and cognitively, through their perception of the organization’s managementand the workplace, and physically, by the energy they use to fulfill their working duties andtasks (Kahn, 1990). Employees may be engaged with the organization and with their job indifferent ways and to different levels, these two conditions are related but not necessarilyoverlapping (Saks, 2006). This positive and fulfilling work-related state of mind is a longterm and persistent perception (Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020). Engagement is verydifficult to generate and keep (Knight et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018), and only the 15% of theworking population worldwide defined themselves engaged in their job (Gallup, 2017).

Knight et al. (2017) determine that pride, reputation, attractiveness, work environment,and image of an organization increase employee engagement and, therefore, responsibleorganizations are the ones with higher levels of work engagement. Employees that work fororganizations with a high level of economic, legal and ethical best practices feel grateful andwilling to repay themwith a higher grade of engagement (Michailides and Lipsett, 2013). Thenorms of reciprocity boost employees willingness to work harder in order to achieve theorganization’s goals and, according to the social learning theory, ethical business practicesact as a role model for employees who, inspired by the managers’ positive example, feel morecommitted and engaged (Afsar et al., 2020).

Employee engagement increases when the organization theywork for shows willingness todisclose relevant and truthful data, to share accountable information, and to involvestakeholders in the decision-making process. Transparency, considered as the creation and thedistribution of relevant and faithful information and knowledge, generates credibility and trustthat foster employee engagement (Rawlins, 2008). When employees have a clear idea of the

EJMBE30,3

284

company’s mission, vision, values and goals (Berggren and Bernshteyn, 2007), they feel theirimage and positive impact enhanced (Madsen, 2016). Employees identify themselves withethical, transparent and accountable entities, therefore this sense of communality increasestheir belonging and engagement. Ethical management positively influences the attitudes andbehaviors of employees (Hur et al., 2019; Lee and Chen, 2018; Testa et al., 2018). Ethicalleadership favors and increases employee engagement (Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020).

Stakeholder’s involvement and active participation is also a key factor for employeeengagement, since being part of the organization strategy and narrative helps the employeeidentification and feeling of belonging, which are important intangible assets for all kinds oforganizations. Employee engagement is positively linked to better performance, highercustomer loyalty, well-being and lower turnover (Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020).

Gallup (2017) shows that engaged faculty and staff members are critical to studentsuccess, since being emotionally and psychologically committed to their work helps studentsovercome the difficulties and anxiety they face. Professors who are engaged at work producebetter student outcomes than their less-engaged peers (Marken and Maton, 2019). Engagedfaculty members enhance students’ experience, satisfaction, and academic results, since acommitted professor is able to engage in a trustful and productive relationship with students.Besides, engaged faculty members trust their organizations and therefore are more willing todevelop positive attitudes, behaviors and organizational commitment (Van Maele and VanHoutte, 2011).

Universities’ role is crucial for society since they act as knowledge broadcasting agentsand they are responsible for training future leaders in social values and sustainability(Dzimi�nska et al., 2018). In the last decades, the most prestigious academic institutions of theworld have been criticized for forging and training professionals on knowledge but not onvalues and ethics. These institutions have been requested to improve their ethical orientationand to base their internal management on transparency and accountability in order to regainpublic trust and social acceptance (Khurana and Nohria, 2008; Khurana and Spender, 2012;Wigmore-�Alvarez et al., 2020).

Under these circumstances, HE institutions have become more socially embedded: theyengage in relationships with relevant agents who can provide resources, support,commitment, trust, and legitimacy (Christensen and Gornitzka, 2017). They have beeninvesting more resources with the aim of building strong relationships with these actors(Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando et al., 2018). HE institutions have a civic mission to produce and tospread new knowledge, and faculty engagement is a core value to fulfill this responsibility ofthe twenty-first century universities (Sandmann, 2008).

Considering the previously discussed arguments, universities that behave ethically, showcommitment to their stakeholders, and are transparent and trustworthy, will be able toenhance their employee engagement.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. Business ethics positively and significantly affects faculty engagement.

2.3 Community outreachUniversities’ mission has changed, and it now goes far beyond simply teaching andresearching (Wigmore-�Alvarez and Ruiz-Lozano, 2012). Universities have the responsibilityto work to improve people’s lives and to find answers to globally important issues (Mart�ınez-Usarralde et al., 2017; Set�o-Pamies et al., 2011). Universities’mainmission is to provide societywith knowledge and solutions for the common good (Mart�ınez-Usarralde et al., 2017; Miottoet al., 2018). Community outreach is a partnership through which the university opens itselfup to the society, adding to the teaching and research tasks the responsibility to deliver apublic service (Sandmann, 2008).

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

285

The importance of the teaching staff engagement and commitment can be consideredas a key factor for universities success. Engaged faculty members work in contact withadministrations, local communities and firms in order to transfer and adapt their academicknowledge to improve people’s daily lives (Figueir�o and Raufflet, 2015; Salvioni et al.,2017). Universities that fulfill this public service through outreach activities areconsidered ethical and aligned with social values, therefore, isomorphically legitimate(Chedrawi et al., 2019).

Having a positive impact on their communities will increase faculty members’engagement with their organization, since they will feel more connected with theuniversity’s values and behavior (Collier and Esteban, 2007). Many authors havesupported the relationship between positive impact on society and employee commitment(Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Alrowwad et al., 2016; Backhaus et al., 2002; Gupta, 2017).

Taking into consideration this theoretical framework, the following hypothesis ispresented:

H2. Community outreach positively and significantly affects faculty engagement.

2.4 The mediating effect of legitimacyStakeholders’ expectations have determined the need for organizations to justify their right toexist and to explain the positive impact they have on society (Simcic Brønn and Vidaver-Cohen, 2009). Service organizations need to satisfy demanding stakeholders, providingbenefits, and delivering a product whose quality might be difficult to objectively evaluate.

Deephouse et al. (2017, p. 9) defined organizational legitimacy as “the perceivedappropriateness of an organization to a social system in terms of rules, values, norms anddefinition.” It depends on the perceptions of the audience and it is granted when behaviors,values and beliefs are shared and coincident (D�ıez-Mart�ın et al., 2020). Legitimacy is affectedby the evaluation and judgment based on stakeholders’ perceptions on the organization’sbehavioral response (Bitektine, 2011). An organization is considered legitimate when it fulfilsstakeholders’ expectation and complies with the actual social system, norms, values andbeliefs (D�ıez-Mart�ın et al., 2020).

Legitimacy is a critical factor (Suddaby et al., 2017) to reach the necessary resources thatfoster and organizations’ success and growth (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). Legitimacygrants higher levels of trust and support from stakeholders (Alajoutsijarvi et al., 2015;Bitektine and Haack, 2015; Deephouse and Carter, 2005; D�ıez-Mart�ın et al., 2013; Patriottaet al., 2011), sincemost groups are onlywilling to engagewith legitimated institutions andwillavoid maintaining relationships with those that are questioned and criticized within theirsocial system (Deephouse et al., 2017).

For HE institutions, legitimacy has become critical to receive social support since someinstitutions have lost their focus and are perceived as not pursuing their original missions ofserving the public good (Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2020; Khurana and Nohria, 2008). Onlylegitimated universities will have the competitive advantage to count with valuable businessand institutional partners, to be able to adapt to the complex regulatory environments, tobenefit from new educational partnership arrangements and to positively manage a globalmarket (Low, 2019).

In this attempt, organizations must consider that ethical behavior is a determinant factorto maintain or increase an institution’s legitimacy (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2016; Scherer et al.,2013). Universities may increase their legitimacy through internal management based onbusiness ethics principles and by positively impacting the society. Business ethics-basedadministration improves employee engagement and loyalty, and community outreachpromotes social acceptance and legitimacy (Castell�o and Lozano, 2011; Yang and Ji, 2019).Legitimacy has been related to positive perceptions of employees (Blanco-Gonzalez et al.,

EJMBE30,3

286

2020; Kanat-Maymon et al., 2018) and it is linked with employee’s commitment level towardtheir organization (Lee et al., 2018; Morin et al., 2016). Universities have to manage theirlegitimacy level to build lasting relationships with their faculty members and earn theircommitment. According to the above literature review and theoretical framework, businessethics has been considered as an antecedent of legitimacy and legitimacy has beenempirically proven as a critical factor to strengthen the relationships with internalstakeholders and, more precisely, with faculty members. Therefore, we propose that themediating effect of legitimacy in the relationship between business ethics and facultyengagement is important and it will highlight relevant implications to the academic andmanagement fields, demonstrating that the relationship between these two variables isaffected by the legitimacy level of the institution. Therefore, the following hypothesis isproposed:

H3. Legitimacy mediates the effect of business ethics on faculty engagement.

Legitimated institutions have better access to necessary resources to survive and succeedbecause stakeholders will be willing to engage only with legitimated organizations(Deephouse et al., 2017). Organizations, that are able to align with ethical norms andvalues, engaging in substantial relationships with their internal and external stakeholdersthrough transparency, accountability, positive impacts and participation will be the oneswith better outcomes (Kostova and Zaheer, 1999). To acquire legitimacy and a competitiveadvantage, universities need to focus on developing ethical behavior but also on positivecommunity outreach through knowledge transfer, solving global and relevant issues andcaring for the common good (Dyllick, 2015; Schensul, 2010). Legitimacy, influencing the senseof belonging and identification of the employees, affects the impact that community outreachhas on faculty engagement. Therefore, testing the mediating role of legitimacy on thisrelationship is important to analyze the determinant role that legitimacy has on howcommunity outreach affects faculty engagement.

Based on these arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4. Legitimacy mediates the effect of community outreach on faculty engagement.

Figure 1 presents the measurement model applied to this research paper.

3. Sample and methodologyThe research setting for this analysis is defined within the Spanish public universities due tothe complex environment in which they operate. These institutions have been working toimprove their management approach and business ethics practices. They have increased thelevel of transparency and accountability, providing information and sharing data with allstakeholders and involving them in the decision making-process as active participants(Wigmore-�Alvarez and Ruiz-Lozano, 2012).

A survey was designed and then distributed to faculty members of the businessdepartments of 47 Spanish universities (Table 1). In a first stage, a pre-test was launchedto verify the questions and scale. After analyzing the results, some questions wereupdated, and others removed to shape the final version of the questionnaire. We collected509 effective responses from faculty members across Spain throughout May and Juneof 2018.

All the considered variables were measured through adapted items from existing scalesusing an 11-point Likert scale (Table 2). The items used to measure community outreach andbusiness ethics were defined combining different existing scales (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007;Vidaver-Cohen and Brønn, 2015). For measuring legitimacy, we considered the definitionprovided by Suchman (1995) and for faculty engagement, the research developed by several

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

287

Source(s): Own elaboration

Business Ethics

LegitimacyFaculty

Engagement

Community

Outreach

H3

H1

H2

H4

Characteristics Responses %

GenderMen 248 49%Women 261 51%

Age18–22 4 1%22–30 48 9%30–45 169 33%45–60 248 49%>60 40 8%

Factor Item Description

Business ethics GOV1 There is a clear vision of the objectives that guide my universityGOV2 It is managed with ethics and transparencyGOV3 It takes into consideration its stakeholders in their management decisions

Communityoutreach

COMOUT1 Exerts positive influence on societyCOMOUT2 Supports good causesCOMOUT3 My university cares about their stakeholders’ well being

Legitimacy LEGGLOB1 My university is an essential institution for society�s developmentLEGGLOB2 The actions and activities developed by my university are appropriate

(consistent with social norms, values and believes)Facultyengagement

FACENG1 I am committed in my relationship with my universityFACENG2 I would defend this university if others criticized itFACENG3 If had to do additional courses or studies, my university would be my first

choiceFACENG4 If someone asked for advice, I would recommend my universityFACENG5 I will encourage friends and family to study in my university

Figure 1.Proposed model

Table 1.Sample profile

Table 2.Measurementinstruments

EJMBE30,3

288

authors (Casta~neda-Garc�ıa and Luque-Mart�ınez, 2008; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001; Morganand Hunt, 1994).

To prove the hypotheses, we applied structural equations using SmartPLS system. Thismethodology was chosen due to the benefits it provides for this type of research (Hair et al.,2014), since it applies a statistical analysis of the relationships, through the prediction of thedependent variables andwe could calculate and quantify the effects that some variables haveon others (Hallak et al., 2018). Furthermore, PLS is appropriate for measurement models withboth formative and reflective items, such as this one (Diamantopoulos andWinklhofer, 2001).

4. Data analysis and resultsIn Table 3, we present the descriptive analysis and show the values of all variables and itemsconsidering the professors’ perceptions. The lowest value was “business ethics” with 6.54over 10, then, “community outreach” as well as “legitimacy” held values close to 7 over 10(7.38 and 7.87 respectively). Finally, “faculty engagement” presented the highest value with8.06 over 10.

4.1 Reliability and validity evaluationTable 4 shows information regarding the model’s reliability and validity. Consideringlegitimacy and faculty engagement’s reflective items, all Cronbach’s alphas (CA) surpassedthe recommendation of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Regarding the compositereliability (CR), every item is within the scope since they are all over 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi,1988). All items present average variance extracted (AVE) values over 0.50 which isconsidered correct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Moreover, the standardized loadings of thereflective items are presented as well as their significant value (p < 0.01) showing that everyitem is significant within its variable.

Regarding discriminant validity, Table 5 shows the HTMT ratio method (Henseler et al.,2015). Since every ratio was lower than 0.85 (Clark andWatson, 1995), no problems appear inthe model. The collinearity (VIF) value is presented for the formative constructs and everyitem is under the appropriate level of VIF< 5 (Hair et al., 2011). Also, the standardizedweightsand their significant values (p< 0.01) are presented, supporting the significance of every itemof the formative constructs of business ethics and community outreach.

Considering the previous analysis, we concluded that the proposed model offersappropriate evidence of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the reflective

Factor Item Mean Standard deviation Average factor value

Business ethics GOV1 6.36 2.42 6.54GOV2 6.64 2.55GOV3 6.62 2.51

Community outreach COMOUT1 7.90 1.92 7.38COMOUT2 7.33 2.07COMOUT3 6.92 2.06

Legitimacy LEGGLOB1 8.07 1.85 7.87LEGGLOB2 7.68 1.83

Faculty engagement FACENG1 8.47 1.77 8.06FACENG2 8.29 2.04FACENG3 7.41 2.42FACENG4 8.09 2.11FACENG5 8.05 2.22

Table 3.Descriptive analysis

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

289

constructs, as well as in terms of collinearity, weight-loading relationship and significantlevels of the formative constructs.

4.2 Hypothesis testingThe obtained results (Table 6) show that the proposed hypotheses established consideringthe literature review can be confirmed except for the direct relationship between businessethics and faculty engagement (H1).

Finally, regarding the mediating effects of legitimacy, the complete model was designedfollowing the approach proposed by Hair et al. (2014). The results (Table 7) confirm thecomplete mediation in the case of the relationship between business ethics and facultyengagement and partial mediation for the relationship between community outreach andfaculty engagement.

Factor Item Weights/loadings t-value VIF CA CR AVE

Business ethics GOV1 0.274 2.498 1.833GOV2 0.541 4.733 2.317GOV3 0.312 2.716 2.277

Community outreach COMOUT1 0.513 7.953 1.833COMOUT2 0.155 2.276 1.742COMOUT3 0.496 9.047 1.600

Legitimacy LEGGLOB1 0.886 47.885 0.777 0.899 0.817LEGGLOB2 0.921 104.069

Faculty engagement FACENG1 0.817 29.892 0.924 0.943 0.769FACENG2 0.839 29.033FACENG3 0.844 37.729FACENG4 0.941 109.049FACENG5 0.935 91.447

Factor Faculty engagement Legitimacy

Faculty engagementLegitimacy 0.787

Beta t-value

H1: Business ethics - Faculty engagement 0.109 1.726H2: Community outreach - Faculty engagement 0.584 9.444

H3: Mediating effect of legitimacy: Business ethics - Faculty engagementBusiness ethics - Legitimacy 0.227 3.651Legitimacy - Faculty engagement 0.386 5.166

H4: Mediating effect of legitimacy: Community outreach - Faculty engagementCommunity outreach - Legitimacy 0.569 9.072Legitimacy - Faculty engagement 0.386 5.166

Note(s): Legitimacy: R2 5 0.563; Q2 5 0.432; Faculty engagement: R2 5 0.511; Q2 5 0.367

Table 4.Measurement modelreliability and validity

Table 5.Discriminant validity

Table 6.Hypothesis testing

EJMBE30,3

290

5. Discussion and implicationsAccording to the literature review, engaged employees are more motivated, more productiveand profitable for the organization they work for and they provide a competitive advantage(Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020; Harter, 2018). Universities are facing difficult times, beingpressured by a highly competitive environment and coping with difficulties to get enoughresources to attract the best faculty members, the most promising students and the mosthelpful corporate partners (Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016). These institutions are asked to buildstrong relationships with their stakeholders and to achieve students’, faculty members’ andstaff’s loyalty by providing a high quality service (Dzimi�nska et al., 2018). Engaged facultymembers are key for building strong, long-lasting and profitable relationships with studentsand the community, generating a sense of belonging, trust and commitment (Van Maele andVan Houtte, 2011; Marken and Maton, 2019).

The objective of this research is to analyzewhich dimensions affect employee engagementin the HE sector, specifically focusing on faculty members. We defined two possible aspectsthatmay affect employee engagement: internally, the business ethics principles that guide theinstitutions’ administrators and, externally, the impact of the university’s activities in society.According to the results, the surveyed facultymembers declared that they feel committed andengaged with their institutions. They would recommend them to their networks and they feelproud to work there. Confirming the literature review, professors consider that theiruniversities have a positive impact on society and the effects of the community outreach oftheir activities increases the meaningfulness of their job as well as the engagement with theirinstitutions (Afsar et al., 2020; Cycyota et al., 2016). Faculty engagement improves whenprofessors perceive that they are positively impacting the society through the university’scommunity outreach (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Alrowwad et al., 2016; Backhaus et al.,2002; Gupta, 2017).

Nevertheless, according to the results, faculty engagement and business ethicsmanagement are not strongly related. Professors do not feel that their institutions aremanaged ethically, and they perceive that transparency and accountability are not maincharacteristics of their universities. According to the literature review, business ethics highlyaffect employee engagement (Castell�o and Lozano, 2011; Yang and Ji, 2019). Ethicalleadership, transparency and accountability shape committed employees, since they tend tomirror their managers’ behavior and become more emotionally and professionally involvedwith their tasks, responsibilities and companies (Hur et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Testa et al.,2018). In the analyzed universities, professors feel engaged despite their perception of lack ofethics in their institutions’ management. Following these results, we propose a newcontribution to the theoretical framework, stating that ethical management improves facultyengagement, but the perception of a lack of ethics does not necessarily impede professors’commitment to their job.

Universities’ mission has changed, and it now goes far beyond simply teaching andresearching (Wigmore-�Alvarez and Ruiz-Lozano, 2012). Universities have the responsibilityto work to improve people’s lives and solve important global issues (Mart�ınez-Usarralde et al.,2017; Set�o-Pamies et al., 2011). Professors feel aligned and committed with their universities’mission to solve social issues and to help the corporate context. They, therefore, consider the

Total effects Total indirect effects VAF

Business ethics 0.109 0.087 80.5%Community outreach 0.584 0.219 37.5%

Note(s): VAF 5 Variance accounted forTable 7.

Mediating effect

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

291

social positive impact rewarding, empowering and self-representing (Afsar et al., 2020;Cycyota et al., 2016).

The literature supports the benefits of being legitimate since it helps organizations obtainresources, grow and survive (Deephouse et al., 2017; Miotto et al., 2020; Suchman, 1995).Results show that legitimacy has a partial mediating effect on the relationship betweencommunity outreach and faculty engagement. When professors consider their institutions aslegitimate, they then feel more engaged thanks to their positive impact on the society. Theinstitutions legitimation reinforces the benefits of their community outreach (Dyllick, 2015;Schensul, 2010).

6. Conclusions, limitations and future research linesOur research contributes to the organizational management literature by providing a newand interesting point of view introducing themediating effect of legitimacy in the relationshipbetween internal and external sources of employee engagement. If we consider the internalsource of engagement, professors believe that their universities’ managers are not able tofulfil the main requirement of business ethics, especially since they do not share valuable andrelevant information and they do not involve them in the decision-making process.Considering the mediating effect of legitimacy, we observe a full mediation. Professors feelthat the source of their engagement may come from the inside of their institutions when theywork for a legitimate university, even though their internal management does not reflect anethical behavior. Considering the results, if a university is perceived by the professors aslegitimate, then the internal ethical management and the external positive impacts on societyencourage faculty members to feel more motivated, aligned with the institutions’ values andengaged.

Our research provides interesting implications for universities administrators. We provethat faculty members improve their engagement when they can cooperate with society,through research, knowledge transfer and teaching. Universities should provide professorswith the option to dedicate their efforts not just on purely academic research and on teachingtime in the classrooms, but also on creating and transferring knowledge useful for companiesand for the society in general.

Nevertheless, the perception of an external positive impact is not enough to fulfilprofessors’ need to commit with their institutions, they ask for ethical leadership and activeinvolvement in the universities’ administration. Managers have to create a trustful internalatmosphere based on business ethics, where professors may feel that they have access toinformation, and they may actively participate to define the institution’s strategy andpriorities. This ethical and trustworthy behavior will increase the institution’s legitimacylevel and these efforts will positively impact professors engagement.

Universities administrators should improve internal communication, providing moreinformation and the option to involve professors in their decisions. Besides, professors shouldperceive that their impact on society is as important for their career as their theoreticalacademic impact. Engaged professors are key to improve universities’ performance in theactual competitive environment, so administrators should act to improve both the internaland the external sources of faculty engagement.

The main limitation of this research lies in the fact that we analyze one internalstakeholder group (faculty members) and we do not take into consideration non-teachingpersonnel which is very important for universities’ success. Besides, we considered only onecountry (Spain). Future research projects should focus on including non-teaching personneland on replicating the study in other countries. Besides future projects should include studiesabout how faculty engagement impact the perception of the university legitimacy from thepoint of view of the students, the corporate partners and the society in general.

EJMBE30,3

292

References

Afsar, B., Al-Ghazali, B. and Umrani, W. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility, workmeaningfulness, and employee engagement: the joint moderating effects of incrementalmoral belief and moral identity centrality”, Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 1264-1278.

Akrivou, K. and Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015), “Educating integrated catalysts: transforming businessschools toward ethics and sustainability”, Academy of Management Learning and Education,Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 222-240.

Alajoutsijarvi, K., Juusola, K. and Siltaoja, M. (2015), “The legitimacy paradox of business schools:losing by gaining?”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 277-291.

Albinger, H.S. and Freeman, S.J. (2000), “Corporate social performance and attractiveness as anemployer to different job seeking populations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 28 No. 3,pp. 243-253.

Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennett, R. and Savani, S. (2009), “University marketing directors’ views on thecomponents of a university brand”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing,Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-33.

Alrowwad, A., Obeidat, B.Y., Tarhini, A. and Aqqad, N. (2016), “The impact of transformationalleadership on organizational performance via the mediating role of corporate socialresponsibility: a structural equation modeling approach”, International Business Research,Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 199.

Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2010), “The influence of university image on student behaviour”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 73-85.

Backhaus, K.B., Stone, B.A. and Heiner, K. (2002), “Exploringthe relationship between corporate socialperformance and employer attractiveness”, Business and Society, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 292-318.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2016), “Managing institutional complexity: alongitudinal study of legitimacy strategies at a sportswear brand company”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 31-51.

Beddewela, E. and Fairbrass, J. (2016), “Seeking legitimacy through CSR: institutional pressures andcorporate responses of multinationals in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 3,pp. 503-522.

Berggren, E. and Bernshteyn, R. (2007), “Organizational transparency drives company performance”,Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 411-417.

Bitektine, A. (2011), “Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: the case of legitimacy,reputation, and status”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 151-179.

Bitektine, A. and Haack, P. (2015), “The ‘macro’ and the ‘micro’ of legitimacy: toward a multileveltheory of the legitimacy process”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1,pp. 49-75.

Blanco-Gonzalez, A., D�ıez-Mart�ın, F., Cach�on-Rodr�ıguez, G. and Prado-Rom�an, C. (2020), “Contributionof social responsibility to the work involvement of employees”, Corporate Social Responsibilityand Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 2588-2598.

Carroll, A.B., Adler, N.J., Mintzberg, H., Cooren, F., Suddaby, R. and Freeman, R.E. (2019), “What ‘are’responsible management; ? A conceptual potluck”, in Laasch, R., Suddaby, R.E., Freeman, R.E.and Jamali, D. (Eds), The Research Handbook of Responsible Management, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Casta~neda-Garc�ıa, J. and Luque-Mart�ınez, T. (2008), “Estudio de la lealtad del cliente a sitios web decontenido gratuito”, Revista Europea de Direcci�on y Econom�ıa de La Empresa, Vol. 17 No. 4,pp. 115-138.

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

293

Castell�o, I. and Lozano, J.M. (2011), “Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporateresponsibility rhetoric”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 11-29.

Chedrawi, C., Howayeck, P. and Tarhini, A. (2019), “CSR and legitimacy in higher educationaccreditation programs, an isomorphic approach of Lebanese business schools”, QualityAssurance in Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 70-81.

Christensen, T. and Gornitzka, �A. (2017), “Reputation management in complex environments—acomparative study of university organizations”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 123-140.

Clark, L.A. and Watson, D. (1995), “Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development”,Psychological Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-319.

Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment”, BusinessEthics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J. (2008), Corporate Social Responsability, Routledge,New York, NY.

Cycyota, C.S., Ferrante, C.J. and Schroeder, J.M. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility andemployee volunteerism: what do the best companies do?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 3,pp. 321-329.

Davidson, P. and Griffin, R.W. (2000), Management: Australia in a Global Context, Wiley, Brisbane.

Decuypere, A. and Schaufeli, W. (2020), “Leadership and work engagement: exploring explanatorymechanisms”, German Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 69-95.

Deephouse, D.L. and Carter, S.M. (2005), “An examination of differences between organizationallegitimacy and organizational reputation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2,pp. 329-360.

Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L.P. and Suchman, M.C. (2017), “Organizational legitimacy: six keyquestions”, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. and Meyer, R. (Eds), The SAGEHandbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd ed,, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 27-52.

Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-Gonz�alez, A. and Gonz�alez-V�azquez, E. (2019), “The relationship betweenimage and reputation in the Spanish public university”, European Research on Managementand Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 87-92.

D�ıez-Mart�ın, F., Prado-Roman, C. and Blanco-Gonz�alez, A. (2013), “Beyond legitimacy: legitimacytypes and organizational success”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 1954-1969.

D�ıez-Mart�ın, F., Blanco-Gonz�alez, A. and Prado-Rom�an, C. (2020), “The intellectual structure oforganizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals”, Review ofManagerial Science. doi: 10.1007/s11846-020-00380-6.

Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators: analternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 269-277.

Dierksmeier, C. (2013), “Kant on virtue”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113 No. 4, pp. 597-609.

Dyllick, T. (2015), “Responsible management education for a sustainable world. The challenges forbusiness schools”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 16-33.

Dzimi�nska, M., Fijałkowska, J. and Sułkowski, Ł. (2018), “Trust-based quality culture conceptualmodel for higher education institutions”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 2599.

Egan, M. (2019), “Sense-making resource efficiency through ‘sustainability’ reports”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 154 No. 3, pp. 797-812.

Ewing, M., Men, L.R. and O’Neil, J. (2019), “Using social media to engage employees: insights frominternal communication managers”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 13No. 2, pp. 110-132.

Ferrell, O.C., Harrison, D.E., Ferrell, L. and Hair, J.F. (2018), “Business ethics, corporate socialresponsibility, and brand attitudes: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95,pp. 491-501.

EJMBE30,3

294

Figueir�o, P.S. and Raufflet, E. (2015), “Sustainability in higher education: a systematic review withfocus on management education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 22-33.

Fisher, J. (2004), “Social responsibility and ethics: clarifying the concepts”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 391-400.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables andmeasurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 382.

Freeman, R.E. (2010), “Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 96, pp. 7-9.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: TheState of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Furlotti, K. and Mazza, T. (2020), “Code of ethics and workers’ communication policies: the role ofcorporate governance”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27No. 6, pp. 3060-3072.

Gallup (2017), State of the Global Workplace, State of the Global Workplace, Gallup Press,New York, NY.

Garriga, E. and Mel�e, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 51-71.

Gupta, M. (2017), “Corporate social responsibility, employee–company identification, andorganizational commitment: mediation by employee engagement”, Current Psychology,Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 101-109.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.

Hair, J., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structuralequation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.

Hallak, R., Assaker, G., O’Connor, P. and Lee, C. (2018), “Firm performance in the upscale restaurantsector: the effects of resilience, creative self-efficacy, innovation and industry experience”,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 40, pp. 229-240.

Harter, J. (2018), “Employee engagement on the rise in the U.S”, available at: news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx.

Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “Images, satisfaction and antecedents: drivers of student loyalty? Acase study of a Norwegian university college”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 38-59.

Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C., Nguyen, B. and Wilson, E.J. (2016), “Exploring brand identity,meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: a special section”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3019-3022.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), “Modeling and managing student loyalty”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331-344.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validityin variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.

Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D. and Drnevich, P. (2017), “Special section on ethics in managementresearch: norms, identity, and community in the 21st century”, Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 84-93.

Hudson, S., Gonz�alez-G�omez, H.V. and Claasen, C. (2017), “Legitimacy, particularism and employeecommitment and justice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 157, pp. 589-603.

Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W. and Choi, W.-H. (2019), “When are internal and external corporate socialresponsibility initiatives amplified? Employee engagement in corporate social responsibilityinitiatives on prosocial and proactive behaviors”, Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 849-858.

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

295

Judson, K.M., Aurand, T.W. and Karlovsky, R.W. (2007), “Applying relationship marketing principlesin the university setting: an adaption of the exchange relationship typology”, MarketingManagement Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 184-197.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psycological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Kanat-Maymon, Y., Yaakobi, E. and Roth, G. (2018), “Motivating deference: employees’ perception ofauthority legitimacy as a mediator of supervisor motivating styles and employee work-relatedoutcomes”, European Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 769-783.

Khurana, R. and Nohria, N. (2008), “It’s time to make management a true profession”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 86 No. 10, pp. 70-77.

Khurana, R. and Spender, J.C. (2012), “Herbert A. Simon on what ails business schools: more than ‘Aproblem in organizational design’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 619-639.

Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 557-569.

Kleinrichert, D. (2008), “Ethics, power and communities: corporate social responsibility revisited”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 475-485.

Knight, C., Patterson, M. and Dawson, J. (2017), “Building work engagement: a systematic review andmeta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 792-812.

Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S. (1999), “Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the caseof the multinational enterprise”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 64-81.

Laasch, O., Moosmayer, D., Antonacopoulou, E. and Schaltegger, S. (2020), “Constellations oftransdisciplinary practices: a map and research agenda for the responsible managementlearning field”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 162 No. 4, pp. 735-757.

Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando, A., Zorrilla, P. and Forcada, J. (2018), “A review of higher education imageand reputation literature: knowledge gaps and a research agenda”, European Research onManagement and Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 8-16.

Lee, L. and Chen, L.F. (2018), “Boosting employee retention through CSR: a configurational analysis”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 948-960.

Lee, Y.J., Jin, H. and O’Donnell, N.H. (2018), “The effects of information cues on perceived legitimacy ofcompanies that promote corporate social responsibility initiatives on social networking sites”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 83, pp. 202-214.

Low, B. (2019), “The intersection of legitimacy needs, actions and reform policy: the case ofprivate higher education”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 1041-1053.

Madsen, V.T. (2016), “Constructing organizational identity on internal social media”, InternationalJournal of Business Communication, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 200-223.

Marken, S. and Maton, T. (2019), Why Drive Employee Engagement in Higher Ed?, Gallup, available at:https://www.gallup.com/education/258344/why-drive-employee-engagement-higher.aspx.

Mart�ınez-Usarralde, M.J., Lloret-Catal�a, C. and Mas-Gil, S. (2017), “Responsabilidad SocialUniversitaria (RSU): principios para una Universidad Sostenible, Cooperativa y Democr�aticadesde el Diagn�ostico Participativo de su Alumnado”, Archivos Anal�ıticos de Pol�ıticasEducativas, Vol. 25 No. 75, pp. 2-25.

Michailides, T.P. and Lipsett, M.G. (2013), “Surveying employee attitudes on corporate socialresponsibility at the frontline level of an energy transportation company”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 296-320.

Miotto, G., Blanco-Gonz�alez, A. and Del-Castillo-Feito, C. (2018), “Social responsibility: a tool forlegitimation in Spanish universities’ strategic plans”, Tr�ıpodos, Vol. 42 No. 42, pp. 59-79.

EJMBE30,3

296

Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C. and Blanco-Gonz�alez, A. (2020), “Reputation and legitimacy: keyfactors for Higher Education Institutions’ sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 112, pp. 342-353.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

Morin, A.J.S., Meyer, J.P., B�elanger, �E., Boudrias, J.-S., Gagn�e, M. and Parker, P.D. (2016), “Longitudinalassociations between employees’ beliefs about the quality of the change management process,affective commitment to change and psychological empowerment”, Human Relations, Vol. 69No. 3, pp. 839-867.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, Vol. 226.

Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P.P. and Schultz, F. (2011), “Maintaining legitimacy: controversies, ordersof worth, and public justifications”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 8,pp. 1804-1836.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantageand corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.

Rawlins, B. (2008), “Give the emperor a mirror: toward developing a stakeholder measurement oforganizational transparency”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 71-99.

Rezaee, Z. (2008), Corporate Governance and Ethics, John Wiley and Sons, Boston.

Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.

Salvioni, D.M., Franzoni, S. and Cassano, R. (2017), “Sustainability in the higher education system: anopportunity to improve quality and image”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 914.

Sandmann, L.R. (2008), “Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: astrategic review, 1996–2006”, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Vol. 12No. 1, pp. 91-104.

Schensul, J.J. (2010), “Engaged universities, community based research organizations and third sectorscience in a global system”, Human Organization, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 307-320.

Scherer, A.G., Palazzo, G. and Seidl, D. (2013), “Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneousenvironments: sustainable development in a globalized world”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 259-284.

Set�o-Pamies, D., Domingo-Vernis, M. and Rabassa-Figueras, N. (2011), “Corporate social responsibilityin management education: current status in Spanish universities”, Journal of Management andOrganization, Vol. 5, pp. 604-620.

Simcic Brønn, P. and Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009), “Corporate motives for social initiative: legitimacy,sustainability, or the bottom line?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 91-109.

Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.

Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A. and Haack, P. (2017), “Legitimacy”, Academy of Management Annals,Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 451-478.

Testa, F., Boiral, O. and Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2018), “Improving CSR performance by hard and softmeans: the role of organizational citizenship behaviours and the internalization of CSR standards”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 853-865.

Van Maele, D. and Van Houtte, M. (2011), “The quality of School life: teacher-student trustrelationships and the organizational School context”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 100 No. 1,pp. 85-100.

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007), “Reputation beyond the rankings: a conceptual framework for businessSchool research”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 278-304.

Vidaver-Cohen, D. and Brønn, P.S. (2015), “Reputation, responsibility, and stakeholder support inscandinavian firms: a comparative analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 49-64.

The influenceof ethics on

facultyengagement

297

Welch, M. (2011), “The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 328-346.

Wigmore-�Alvarez, A. and Ruiz-Lozano, M. (2012), “University social responsibility (USR) in the globalcontext: an overview of literature”, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4,pp. 475-498.

Wigmore-�Alvarez, A., Ruiz-Lozano, M. and Fern�andez-Fern�andez, J.L. (2020), “Management ofUniversity Social Responsibility in business schools. An exploratory study”, InternationalJournal of Management Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 100382.

Yang, A. and Ji, Y.G. (2019), “The quest for legitimacy and the communication of strategic cross-sectoral partnership on Facebook: a big data study”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 45 No. 5,p. 101839.

Zadek, S. (1998), “Balancing performance, ethics, and accountability”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 17 No. 13, pp. 1421-1441.

Zhou, Z., Luo, B.N. and Tang, T.L.-P. (2018), “Corporate social responsibility excites ‘exponential’positive employee engagement: the matthew effect in CSR and sustainable policy”, CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 339-354.

Zimmerman, M.A. and Zeitz, G.J. (2002), “Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by buildinglegitimacy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 414-431.

Corresponding authorAlicia Blanco-Gonz�alez can be contacted at: alicia.blanco@urjc.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

EJMBE30,3

298